Share this content

Interesting departure from Rangers "acquiescence"

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2022/TC08475.pdf

Didn't find your answer?

See para 200 (the judge does not explain why there’s no Rangers s62 acquiescence*). But taxpayer (predictably) lost anyway on P7A (mostly) per para 253 and W&E per para 152

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2022/TC08475.pdf

It seems the distribution argument only failed at para 221 as there were multiple shareholders with varying loan amounts.

Interesting conclusion in para 245 re "payment".

* Presumably if distribution treatment had been pleaded here, the taxpayer would have won that para 204 point (on similar BW EBT loan planning): https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2021/TC08348.pdf

As in this other similar BW EBT case: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2021/TC08246.pdf

Replies (3)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th May 2022 10:05

Reflecting on this other similar case with the same judge, she has been a bit inconsistent here.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2021/TC08348.pdf

She effectively accepted in paras 205 & 225 of that case that there was acquiescence and so s62 was engaged à la Rangers and P7A applied also (but s62 takes priority) (although as stated above non-s62 distribution treatment was not pleaded there by the taxpayer - but that would presumably have made no difference).

Despite what she says at para 220, it seems that if there is Rangers s62 acquiescence then P7A will always be engaged (and vice versa for such EBT loan cases, as acquiescence is a low hurdle), yet in this latest case she says P7A applies and yet there is no Rangers s62 acquiescence, which actually leaves the taxpayer worse off here, as P7A gives a s222 charge, whereas s62 does not.

So perhaps the taxpayer can appeal on that basis.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By More unearned luck
11th May 2022 16:48

Off topic, perhaps, but why does it take six barristers, including to QCs, to present HMRC's case? There is no mention of the case being categorised as complex or, if it had that the appellant hadn't opted out the costs regime, so it seems that I together with all other taxpayers are paying for his overmanning. It did take ten days of court time, but even so six does seem excessive.

Thanks (0)
Replying to More unearned luck:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
11th May 2022 17:24

It's partly explained by the fact that HMRC were "ambushed" late in the day with a defective implementation trust argument, so they had to call in some trust barrister specialist(s) to counter that.

It's mainly explained by the fact that it's not their money of course! (Plus it's a BW RT scheme and GGQC lost one of those for HMRC recently, so they were presumably extra determined to see it fail at any cost.)

Thanks (0)
Share this content